Anectdotal “evidence” is exactly why a lot of people don’t buy into the idea that warming is driven by carbon emissions. Earth climate is super complex and barely understood by science, far as I can see– so how does one weigh anectdotal information without a complete understanding of the entire process? It would also help if the models based on that theory actually worked as against actual real world data.

Mike: You’re projecting. What you mean to say is not “barely understood by science”, you meant to say “barely understood by me”. As you’d know if you read some of the books on the list, the basics of climate science were established decades ago, and are now very well understood. And the models? They’ve made many successful predictions. Here are a few for you to get started with:http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2012/12/successful-predictions-agu-2012-tyndall-lecture/

There are about 25 different computer models being used, and each time they make about 1000 runs to get an average climate prediction. They do make many successful predictions, and many unsuccessful ones as well. Even a broken clock is correct at least once a day.